WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
May 19 2022
WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO

PM: human rights court ‘swamped’

PM: human rights court ‘swamped’

David Cameron yesterday called for reform of the European Court of Human Rights to prevent it turning into ‘a small claims court’ that was  ‘swamped’ by ‘spurious’ cases.

The Prime Minister insisted that human rights was a cause that ‘ran deep in the British heart and long in British history’. ‘We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust. This has a lot to do with Britain’s national character – a love of freedom and an instinctive loathing of over-mighty authority. But it is also about our national interest – to live, travel and trade in a more open, secure world.’

However Cameron  argued that the court was ‘under threat’. ‘We have seen a massive inflation in the number of cases. In the first 40 years of its existence, 45,000 cases were presented to the court. In 2010 alone, 61,300 applications were presented… the very purpose of the Court – to prevent the most serious violations of human rights – is under threat.’

  • You can a full transcript of the speech HERE.
  • You can read Matt Evan’s on the PM’s speech and the Abu Qatada case HERE.
  • You can read about the Coalition government and human rights HERE.

 

From the PM’s speech:

Court of the fourth instance: the PM talked of ‘the risk’ of turning the European Court of Human Rights into a court of “fourth instance”’.

‘In effect that gives an extra bite of the cherry to anyone who is dissatisfied with a domestic ruling, even where that judgement is reasonable, well-founded, and in line with the Convention.

Quite simply, the Court has got to be able to fully protect itself against spurious cases when they have been dealt with at the national level.’

Slim margin of appreciation:  The PM also said that it ‘felt to us in national governments that the ‘margin of appreciation’ – which allows for different interpretations of the Convention – has shrunk’ and that ‘not enough account is being taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments’. ‘As the margin of appreciation has shrunk, so controversy has grown.’

Right moment for reform: The PM argued that the court should be ‘free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights’ and ‘not swamped with an endless backlog of cases’. The Court should ‘not act as a small claims court’ and ‘not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to’.